dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:10:38PM +0200, Johan Jansson wrote:
> > The license change was agreed on in an email correspondance between the
> > four main developers of Dolfin, earlier this year. We agreed on a final
> > list of copyright holders in the code to obtain consent from, and we
> > agreed on that if we did not receive any response we would go through with
> > the change, and take out the code of non-consenting copyright holders.
> >
> > I think we have received consent from most/all copyright holders, so I
> > think it is natural to implement what we agreed on. Is there anyone in
> > particular that has not approved that you are thinking of?
> >
> > I have kept most of the email correspondance in case we feel a need for
> > publishing it on the mailing list.
> >
> > /Johan
> >
> >
> >> Did we really get everyone's agreement on this?
> >>
> >> My understanding was that we were still awaiting approvement from all
> >> authors? We haven't even discussed this on the list.
> >>
> >> /Anders
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, we did get agreement from most of the major source contributors. At
> least I have not been expecting any more answers, I was satisified with
> the answers we got. The only reason the change hasn't happened earlier is
> because I haven't gotten around to implement it, apologies if the delay
> caused a surprise.

It did come as a surprise, that's all.

> We have had a quite thorough discussion with all concerned parties (source
> contributors). Perhaps we could also have had discussion on this mailing
> list, but I have not sensed any controversy over this issue. Is there any
> controversy over this issue? It was brought up once right after FEniCS'06,
> but it received no reply.
> 
> These have indicated agreement:
> 
> Johan Hoffman
> Johan Jansson
> Anders Logg
> Garth Wells
> Andy Terrel
> Georgios Foufas
> Glenn Lines
> Angelo Simone
> Alexander Jarosch
> 
> Nobody has indicated disagreement.
> 
> These have not replied at all:
> 
> Erik Svensson
> Haiko Etzel
> Harald Svensson
> Jim Tilander
> Kristian Oelgaard
> Minh Do-Quang

Jim Tilander has also agreed.

> My feeling is that we have been as thorough as we can. The code that we
> have not had any replies about is self-contained and quite limited.
> Possibly Kristian Oelgaard's code is a bit spread out, touching 3 files in
> mesh and 1 in la. I can send a personal email to him again in case he has
> any objections and missed the mail. If we receive a disagreeing email in
> the future we can simply comply and take the code out.
> 
> I'm confident though that this change has been made according to the law
> (which is why we were careful in the first place) and that we have taken
> the steps we reasonably can be expected to take.
> 
>   Johan

Sure, but what about LGPL v3. Has anyone looked at it?

/Anders